Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU # 129 Case file # 95-265396.
Material Examiner:
Malone (RO~)
Remarks:
Case resulted in trial, transcript available .
i
INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT
+
■
■
■ b
*
",
■ ■
■
■ q. ■
Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson
■ + *
■ . ■ ■
■ ■ * . J
■ ■
w
m m
►
Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber
Review commenced at: 1 2:45 PM (Time), 1 1/16/00 (Date)
File U: 95-265396
Laboratory #(s): 50205046
60122029
Examiner(s) & Symbols
Reviewed
Not Reviewed
Reviewed
Not Reviewed
RQ
Xu
□
□
□
WM.TT
□
XD
□
□
□
D
□
□
Materials Reviewed
Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Michael P Malone
Testimony Date(s): unknown Pages: 19 un-numbered pages
Laboratory Report(s):
Laboratory Number:
50205046
Date:
May 1 0, 1 985
Laboratory Number:
60122029
Date:
May 30, 1986
Laboratory Number:
Date:
Examiner Bench Notes of:
RQ/technician
1 ,
Laboratory Number: 50205046
60122029
Page 1 of 4
CRM - 10713
Initials:
Wa£ any other material reviewed? )£□ . 'Yes □ No ■
i i
"
" m m k
T
■
■. ■ U
^If-yes, please identify and/or describe the material;. „ Submitting agency letters dated 1/23/85 and 1/21/86 and
Malone's dictation for 50205046 ’ -
■
■
Results of Review
r
File #; 95*265396 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q16-Q22, K1Q-K13
Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:
Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses
1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?
□ Yes □ No nX Unable to Determine
2) Arc the examination results set forth in the laboratory rcport(s) supported and adequately documented in
the bench notes? o Yes OX No a Unable to Determine
Review of Testimony:
Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or "Unable to Determine” Responses
□ Transcript not available.
3)
Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)?
OX Yes
□ No
o Unable to Determine
4)
Testimony consistent with the bench notes?
□ Yes
□X No
□ Unable to Determine
5)
Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise?
□ Yes
□X No
□ Unable to Determine
t
Page
2 of t
i
Initials:
+
Comments -
(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)
File #:
95-2653 96
■
# 1 . It cannot be determined from the documentation that the tests were performed in a scientifically acceptable
manner.
#2, The results are documented in the notes, but the notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. This is not
adequate documentation.
The technician docs not document the recovery of any hair from the Q items.
Abbreviations are used that are difficult to interpret (such as “M-lt dist, It indist" and "cut-ssp”) to describe some
of the characteristics of the hair.
The laboratory report does not include the result that a pubic hair was recovered from QlS-victim’s jeans that
does not match the victim or the suspect hair.
#4. The testimony is consistent with the notes except that the pubic hair recovered from QlS-victim's jeans is
Review completed at:
2:15 PM (Time),
II / 16/2000
(Date)
Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour):
1.50 hour
I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 4 pages.
(Signature)
(Date)
Page
of
Initials:
+
Additional Comments
■ : (Set forth by question #, if applicable)
m
File #: 95-265396 — f : _ :
" ■
™ " " ™ 1 ■ P P
#4 (continued): . -
not revealed during testimony.
5* RQ misrepresents his experience of having examined hair from 10,000+ people and only twice was unable to
distinguish the hair to the equivalent of the Gaudette study done at the RCMP, The Gaudette study attempted to
calculate the -frequency of a chance match ofa. common, featureless head hair, and arrived at a one in 4500